Family Court of Australia
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Annulment, Marriage, Nullity
Judges: Watts J
Background: The parties were married by way of a ceremony that took place at the registry office in London in January 2004. Subsequently the parties entered into a second ceremony of marriage in New South Wales at Town A in August 2004. On 2 June 2011, the parties jointly made an application to the Federal Magistrates Court for dissolution of both the marriages. On 3 August 2011 a registrar made a divorce order in respect of the marriage solemnised in London in April 2004. The registrar was unable to make any orders in respect of the Australian marriage and concluded that you can only be divorced once and also concluded that the registrar had no power to make a declaration of invalidity in respect of the second ceremony.
[Legal Issue]The parties had married in London in January 2004, before subsequently marrying in New South Wales, asserting they had never been married before.
The parties were granted a divorce order in the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of the marriage ceremony that was solemnised in London. Given that the parties were legally married when they involved themselves in the Australian ceremony, the Court was satisfied that that ceremony had no legal effect and a declaration of nullity was granted.
Where a person is already married, and enters a second purported marriage without the first marriage having been dissolved (by divorce or death of a party, for instance), the second marriage will be void.
[Court Orders]That part of the definition of matrimonial cause refers to proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage. Given that the parties were legally married at the time that they involved themselves in the ceremony at Town A in August 2004, I am satisfied that that ceremony had no effect and any marriage that was purported to have taken place on that day was invalid.
Catchwords: Annulment, Marriage, Nullity
Judges: Watts J
Background: The parties were married by way of a ceremony that took place at the registry office in London in January 2004. Subsequently the parties entered into a second ceremony of marriage in New South Wales at Town A in August 2004. On 2 June 2011, the parties jointly made an application to the Federal Magistrates Court for dissolution of both the marriages. On 3 August 2011 a registrar made a divorce order in respect of the marriage solemnised in London in April 2004. The registrar was unable to make any orders in respect of the Australian marriage and concluded that you can only be divorced once and also concluded that the registrar had no power to make a declaration of invalidity in respect of the second ceremony.
[Legal Issue]The parties had married in London in January 2004, before subsequently marrying in New South Wales, asserting they had never been married before.
The parties were granted a divorce order in the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of the marriage ceremony that was solemnised in London. Given that the parties were legally married when they involved themselves in the Australian ceremony, the Court was satisfied that that ceremony had no legal effect and a declaration of nullity was granted.
Where a person is already married, and enters a second purported marriage without the first marriage having been dissolved (by divorce or death of a party, for instance), the second marriage will be void.
[Court Orders]That part of the definition of matrimonial cause refers to proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage. Given that the parties were legally married at the time that they involved themselves in the ceremony at Town A in August 2004, I am satisfied that that ceremony had no effect and any marriage that was purported to have taken place on that day was invalid.
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Children, Relocation
Judges: Cronin J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Children, Relocation
Judges: Cronin J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Proceedings to Alter Property Interests, Property, Property Settlement
Judges: Le Poer Trench J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Proceedings to Alter Property Interests, Property, Property Settlement
Judges: Le Poer Trench J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Contract, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Property, Rectification
Judges: Young J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Binding Financial Agreement, Contract, Pre-Nuptial Agreement, Property, Rectification
Judges: Young J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Communication, Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Responsibility, Parenting Orders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child lives with
Judges: Cleary J
Background: The parties began a relationship when Ms Green was 12 and Mr Hann was 16 years old. They married in 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in 2004 when the children were aged about 3 ½ years and 18 months old respectively. The children then lived with their mother and spent regular time with their father, including overnight time. Contact between the children and their father proceeded without incident until 2009. However in 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
[Legal Issue]In 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
The Court has found that this behaviour was encouraged by the mother, who had formed an unhealthy dependence on the children.
As a result, the Court found that there should be a change of residence, from the mother to the father.
[Court Orders]there should be a change of residence;
there should be a period of time when there is limited supervised time with the mother to enable them to settle down in the father’s household and to begin to understand all the changes in their lives;
the children’s behaviour, especially C’s, needs ongoing therapeutic intervention. I find that the mother would not facilitate this but the father and his extended family will;
communication between the parties may improve after the mother takes
Catchwords: Communication, Emotional Abuse, Enmeshment, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Responsibility, Parenting Orders, Psychological Disorders, Risk of Psychological Harm, Sole Parental Responsibility, Supervised contact with Child, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child lives with
Judges: Cleary J
Background: The parties began a relationship when Ms Green was 12 and Mr Hann was 16 years old. They married in 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. The parties separated in 2004 when the children were aged about 3 ½ years and 18 months old respectively. The children then lived with their mother and spent regular time with their father, including overnight time. Contact between the children and their father proceeded without incident until 2009. However in 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
[Legal Issue]In 2009, the children began to exhibit challenging and concerning behaviour both at school and towards the father.
The Court has found that this behaviour was encouraged by the mother, who had formed an unhealthy dependence on the children.
As a result, the Court found that there should be a change of residence, from the mother to the father.
[Court Orders]there should be a change of residence;
there should be a period of time when there is limited supervised time with the mother to enable them to settle down in the father’s household and to begin to understand all the changes in their lives;
the children’s behaviour, especially C’s, needs ongoing therapeutic intervention. I find that the mother would not facilitate this but the father and his extended family will;
communication between the parties may improve after the mother takes
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t
Catchwords: Allegations of Child Abuse, Emotional Abuse, False Allegations of Child Abuse, Hostile Parental Behaviour, Obstruction of Contact with Child, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Psychological, Risk of Psychological Harm, Unacceptable Risk, Unsubstantiated Allegations, With whom a child spends time with
Judges: Bennett J
Background: This is a case of an Anglo-Australian father and a Chinese-born mother. There was a high level of parental conflict during and after the breakdown of the relationship. After separation, the mother and father lived in separate states. They had two children aged 11 and 9. The father had then re-partnered. In dispute over 'contact with the children' after separation, the mother made allegations of child sexual abuse against the father. She also made allegations of physical violence by the father against her and the children. These allegations were found to be baseless, contrived and pre-meditated by the Court. The mother also engaged in behaviour intended to incite hatred in the children against the father. This alienation proceeded to a degree where the children did not want t
[Legal Issue]Despite the findings of the Court against the mother, the Court had to address how it was going to deal with the intense "antipathy" that the children felt towards their father, to the point where they threatened self-harm if they were forced to see him.
The Court found the children to be “articulate, forthright and self-assured adolescents.” In that context, the threat of self-harm if made to spend time with the father must be given sufficient weight as a likely outcome if contact with the father was forced onto the children.
The Court concluded that imposing a “solution” on the children without deference to their views would at least compromise their development and, possibly, inspire the threatened self-harm.
[Court Orders]His Honour ordered equal shared parental responsibility, but that the children live with the mother and spend no time with the father. However, the Judge ordered a "post orders program", as recommended by the supervising family consultant with a view to the girls, being reunited with their father as soon as practicable. (this program subsequently failed: re: Wang & Dennison (No. 2) [2009] FamCA 1251)
The judge also requested that a family consultant be nominated to supervise compliance with t
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Equal Parenting Time, Reasonable Practicality, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Brown FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Equal Parenting Time, Reasonable Practicality, Substantial and Significant Time
Judges: Brown FM
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Electronic Surveillance, Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: Le Poer Trench J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Electronic Surveillance, Evidence, Recorded conversations
Judges: Le Poer Trench J
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Annulment, Nullity
Judges: Lindenmayer J
Background: In this case involving the husband who alleged nullity of marriage, he claimed he was the victim of marriage fraud after marrying a Chinese woman who really only wanted a residency visa. The man claimed that he believed the woman would live with him as his wife, but the marriage was never consummated and she left him soon after getting her visa.
[Legal Issue]This case seemed to highlight the Court's narrow definition of the term "fraud". The application itself was dismissed, as the judge found that the bride had not committed fraud under the law in this case. The Judge stated that the neither the husband's application nor his affidavit alleged that there was any fraud as to the identity of the other party or of the ceremony itself.
[Court Orders]1. That the husband's application for a Decree of Nullity be dismissed;
2. That the husband serve the wife with a copy of these orders and my reasons for judgment;
3. That there be no order as to costs.
Catchwords: Annulment, Nullity
Judges: Lindenmayer J
Background: In this case involving the husband who alleged nullity of marriage, he claimed he was the victim of marriage fraud after marrying a Chinese woman who really only wanted a residency visa. The man claimed that he believed the woman would live with him as his wife, but the marriage was never consummated and she left him soon after getting her visa.
[Legal Issue]This case seemed to highlight the Court's narrow definition of the term "fraud". The application itself was dismissed, as the judge found that the bride had not committed fraud under the law in this case. The Judge stated that the neither the husband's application nor his affidavit alleged that there was any fraud as to the identity of the other party or of the ceremony itself.
[Court Orders]1. That the husband's application for a Decree of Nullity be dismissed;
2. That the husband serve the wife with a copy of these orders and my reasons for judgment;
3. That there be no order as to costs.